I/P ENGINE, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITSMOTION FOR AN AWARD OF POST-JUDGMENT ROYALTIESI. INTRODUCTION

This Court’s final judgment finding I/P Engine’s patents not invalid and infringed workeda substantial shift in the bargaining position of the parties. With respect to the patents-in-suit, I/PEngine is in a much better bargaining position with Google than it would have been prior to the jury verdict. Ignoring this “substantial shift” in I/P Engine’s bargaining power, Defendants ask this Court to award at most a $3.5 million lump-sum payment. Defendants’ argument largelyrelies on the pre-verdict 2008 Carl Meyer and 2011 Lycos agreements as controlling during the post-verdict hypothetical negotiations. This is the very same damages model and evidenceDefendants presented at trial, and which the jury flatly rejected.Defendants admit continuing infringement at least from November 2012 through May2013, but provide no meaningful opposition to I/P Engine’s post-judgment royalty analysisduring that period. Instead, Defendants wholly disregard the jury’s verdict as well as thisCourt’s and the Federal Circuit’s precedent in

of past-infringement.Post-verdict, Defendants’ continued infringement is willful. It is customary and justifiedto increase the jury’s royalty rate to reflect both the change of circumstances and a defendant’s post-judgment willful infringement. Without post-judgment enhancement, Defendants wouldhave no incentive to not infringe; there would be no downside to being an adjudged infringer because only a reasonable royalty (or substantially less as asserted by Defendants) would beimposed. Defendants’ position is not supported by law or fact. In fact, I/P Engine has beenunable to identify a single case where an ongoing royalty was awarded at a rate lower than the jury’s verdict—much less one that removes the jury’s running royalty finding altogether. On ago-forward basis, I/P Engine is entitled to more—not some 90% less—than the jury’s award for past infringement. Defendants’ contrary position should be rejected.Further, Defendants’ alleged design around (allegedly implemented two days before their opposition) is nothing more than an attempt to hijack I/P Engine’s motion for ongoing royalties.Indeed, Google—after over a year of extensive discovery; multiple expert reports; a 3-week jurytrial; and a $30 M verdict—now over 7 months after the Court’s final judgment, claims that ithas easily and at no impact on revenue, designed around the patents and no longer infringers. Itasks this Court to accept this as true based on a declaration from Mr. Furrow—who testified attrial about three other different and allegedly easily, no impact, alternatives. The Court shouldreject Google’s attempt to subvert the ongoing royalty issue here and outright reject Defendants’alleged design-around claim as it is not properly before this Court.

Defendants ask this Court to deny I/P Engine post-judgment royalties (at 26) or to limitany ongoing royalties to a $3.5 million lump sum (a fraction of the jury’s reasonable royalty) (at10). Defendants offer no precedent (and I/P Engine has found none) that has outright deniedongoing royalties or reduced a jury’s running royalty rate for continued infringement post- judgment.

1

To the contrary, post-judgment enhancement of the jury’s royalty rate is favored:Without the risk of post-judgment enhancement, a defendant would be encouraged to bitterly contest every claim of patent infringement, because in the end, only a reasonableroyalty would be imposed and there would essentially be no downside to losing.

Affinity Labs of Texas, Inc. v. BMW N. Am., LLC

, 783 F. Supp. 2d 891, 898 (E.D. Tex. 2011);

Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc.

, 836 F. Supp. 2d 462, 483 (E.D. Tex. 2010)

rev’d onother grounds

, 705 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[a]n on going post-verdict royalty isappropriately higher than the jury’s pre-verdict reasonable royalty”). This Court should rejectDefendants’ (adjudicated and now willful infringers) attempt to owe less for their post-verdictinfringement than the jury found they owed for their pre-verdict infringement.